It is argued that the lesson we should learn from Bell's inequalities is not that quantum mechanics requires some kind of action at a distance, but that it leads us to believe in parallel worlds. Introduction Bell's work [1] led to a revolution in our understanding of nature. I remember attending my first physics conference, on “Microphysical Reality and Quantum Formalism,” in Urbino, 1985. Most of the talks were about Aspect's experiment [2] confirming the nonlocality of quantum mechanics based on experimental violations of Bell's inequalities. Although I did not share the skepticism of many speakers regarding the results of Aspect, I was not ready to accept that a local action in one place can instantaneously change anything at another place. So, while for the majority the lesson from Bell was that quantum mechanics requires some “spooky action at a distance”, I was led by Bell's result to an alternative revolutionary change in our view of nature. I saw no other way than accepting the manyworlds interpretation (MWI) of quantum mechanics [3, 4]. I shall start by presenting the Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen (EPR) [5] argument. Then I will present Bell's presented using the Greenberger–Horne–Zeilinger setup [6] in the form proposed by Mermin [7, 8]. The discussion of nonlocality will suggest that Bell's inequalities are the only manifestation of action at a distance in nature. The demonstration of the necessity of action at a distance will be done through a detailed analysis of the GHZ experiment. Then I shall show how multiple worlds resolve the problem of action at a distance. After discussing the issue of nonlocality in the MWI, I shall conclude by citing Bell's views on the MWI. EPR–Bell–GHZ The story of Bell cannot be told without first describing the EPR argument. Instead of following the historical route, I shall use the GHZ setup, which, in my view, is the clearest way to explain the EPR and Bell's discovery.
It is argued that the lesson we should learn from Bell's inequalities is not that quantum mechanics requires some kind of action at a distance, but that it leads us to believe in parallel worlds. Introduction Bell's work [1] led to a revolution in our understanding of nature. I remember attending my first physics conference, on “Microphysical Reality and Quantum Formalism,” in Urbino, 1985. Most of the talks were about Aspect's experiment [2] confirming the nonlocality of quantum mechanics based on experimental violations of Bell's inequalities. Although I did not share the skepticism of many speakers regarding the results of Aspect, I was not ready to accept that a local action in one place can instantaneously change anything at another place. So, while for the majority the lesson from Bell was that quantum mechanics requires some “spooky action at a distance”, I was led by Bell's result to an alternative revolutionary change in our view of nature. I saw no other way than accepting the manyworlds interpretation (MWI) of quantum mechanics [3, 4]. I shall start by presenting the Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen (EPR) [5] argument. Then I will present Bell's presented using the Greenberger–Horne–Zeilinger setup [6] in the form proposed by Mermin [7, 8]. The discussion of nonlocality will suggest that Bell's inequalities are the only manifestation of action at a distance in nature. The demonstration of the necessity of action at a distance will be done through a detailed analysis of the GHZ experiment. Then I shall show how multiple worlds resolve the problem of action at a distance. After discussing the issue of nonlocality in the MWI, I shall conclude by citing Bell's views on the MWI. EPR–Bell–GHZ The story of Bell cannot be told without first describing the EPR argument. Instead of following the historical route, I shall use the GHZ setup, which, in my view, is the clearest way to explain the EPR and Bell's discovery.
J.S. Bell's remarkable 1964 theorem showed that any theory sharing the empirical predictions of orthodox quantum mechanics would have to exhibit a surprising – and, from the point of view of relativity theory, very troubling – kind of nonlocality. Unfortunately, even still on this 50th anniversary, many commentators and textbook authors continue to misrepresent Bell's theorem. In particular, one continues to hear the claim that Bell's result leaves open the option of concluding either nonlocality or the failure of some unorthodox “hidden variable” (or “determinism” or “realism”) premise. This mistaken claim is often based on a failure to appreciate the role of the earlier 1935 argument of Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen in Bell's reasoning. After briefly reviewing this situation, I turn to two alternative versions of quantum theory – the “many worlds” theory of Everett and the quantum Bayesian interpretation of Fuchs, Schack, Caves, and Mermin – that purport to provide actual counterexamples to Bell's claim that nonlocality is required to account for the empirically verified quantum predictions. After analyzing each theory's grounds for claiming to explain the EPR–Bell correlations locally, however, one can see that (despite a number of fundamental differences) the two theories share a common for-all-practical-purposes (FAPP) solipsistic character. This dramatically undermines such theories’ claims to provide a local explanation of the correlations and thus, by concretizing the ridiculous philosophical lengths to which one must go to elude Bell's own conclusion, reinforces the assertion that nonlocality really is required to coherently explain the empirical data. Introduction Fifty years ago, in 1964 [1], John Stewart Bell first proved the theorem that has become widely known as “Bell's Theorem” but that Bell himself instead referred to as the “locality inequality theorem” [2]. In Bell's own view, the theorem showed that the empirical predictions of local theories will be constrained by Bell's inequality (or as Bell himself preferred to call it, the “locality inequality”). Hence, nonlocality is a necessary feature of any theory that shares the empirical predictions of standard quantum mechanics.
In the 80 years since the seminal Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen (EPR) paper, physicists and philosophers have mused about the `spooky action at a distance' aspect of quantum mechanics that so bothered Einstein. In his formal analysis of EPR-type entangled quantum states, Bell (1964) concluded that any hidden variable theory designed to reproduce the predictions of quantum mechanics must necessarily be nonlocal and allow superluminal interactions. This doesn't immediately imply that nonlocality is a characteristic feature of quantum mechanics let alone a fundamental property of nature; however, many physicists and philosophers of science do harbor this belief. Experts in the field often use the term `nonlocality' to designate particular non-classical aspects of quantum entanglement and do not confuse the term with superluminal interactions. However, many physicists seem to take the term more literally. I endeavor to disabuse the latter of this notion by emphasizing that the correlations of Bell-type entanglement are a result of ordinary quantum superposition with no need to introduce nonlocality. The conclusion of the EPR paper wasn't that quantum mechanics is nonlocal but rather that it is an incomplete description of reality. For different reasons, many physicists, including me, agree with Einstein that quantum mechanics is necessarily an incomplete description of reality.
Introduction Fifty years after the publication of Bell's theorem, there remains some controversy regarding what the theorem is telling us about quantum mechanics, and what the experimental violations of Bell inequalities are telling us about the world. This chapter represents my best attempt to be clear about what I think the lessons are. In brief: There is some sort of nonlocality inherent in any quantum theory, and, moreover, in any theory that reproduces, even approximately, the quantum probabilities for the outcomes of experiments. But not all forms of nonlocality are the same; there is a distinction to be made between action at a distance and other forms of nonlocality, and I will argue that the nonlocality needed to violate the Bell inequalities need not involve action at a distance. Furthermore, the distinction between forms of nonlocality makes a difference when it comes to compatibility with relativistic causal structure. The Bell locality condition is a condition which, if satisfied, renders possible a completely local account of the correlations between outcomes of spatially separated experiments. Bell's theorem tells us that the probabilities that we compute from quantum mechanics do not admit of such an account. Modulo auxiliary assumptions that, in my opinion, should be noncontroversial, this yields the conclusion that there must be something nonlocal about any theory that yields the quantum mechanical probabilities or anything close to them. One way to violate the Bell locality condition – and this is the way that any deterministic theory must do it – is via straightforward action at a distance. However, we should also consider the possibility of a stochastic theorywith probabilistic laws that involve irreducible correlations. The sort of nonlocality inherent in such a theory involves relations between events that are significantly different from causal relations as usually conceived. Perhaps surprisingly, such a theory, unlike its deterministic cousins, need not invoke a distinguished relation of distant simultaneity. This makes a difference for the situation of the two sorts of theories vis-a-vis relativity. Though a deterministic theory can achieve the appearance of being relativistic, at the level of observable phenomena, it can do so only by introducing a preferred foliation and with it a causal structure at odds with relativistic causal structures. Things are otherwise with dynamical collapse theories.
We present a non-mathematical explanation of Bell's inequality. Using the inequality, we show how the results of Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) experiments violate the principle of strong locality. This indicates, given some reasonable-sounding assumptions, that some sort of faster-than-light influence is present in nature. We discuss the implications, emphasizing the relationship between EPR and the Principle of Relativity, the distinction between causal influences and signals, and the tension between EPR and determinism.
Introduction Since its inception, fifty years ago, Bell's theorem has had a long history not only of experimental tests but also of theoretical developments. Studying pairs of correlated quantummechanical particles separated in space, in a composite “entangled” state, Bell [1] showed that the joint ascription of hidden variables and locality to the system led to an inequality that is violated by the predictions of quantum mechanics. Fifteen years later, experiments confirmed the predictions of quantum mechanics, ruling out a large class of local realist theories. One of the most meaningful theoretical developments that followed Bell's work was the Greenberger–Horne–Zeilinger (GHZ) theorem, also known as Bell's theorem without inequalities. In 1989, the American physicists Daniel Greenberger and Michael Horne, who had been working on Bell's theorem since the late 1960s, together with the Austrian physicist Anton Zeilinger, introduced a novelty into the testing of entanglement, extending Bell's theorem in a different and interesting direction. According to Franck Laloë [2], For many years, everyone thought that Bell had basically exhausted the subject by considering all really interesting situations, and that two-spin systems provided the most spectacular quantum violations of local realism. It therefore came as a surprise to many when in 1989 Greenberger, Horne, and Zeilinger (GHZ) showed that systems containing more than two correlated particles may actually exhibit even more dramatic violations of local realism. The trio analyzed the Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen 1935 argument once again and were able to write what are now called Greenberger–Horne–Zeilinger (GHZ) entangled states, involving three or four correlated spin-1/2 particles, leading to conflicts between local realist theories and quantum mechanics. However, unlike Bell's theorem, the conflict now was not of a statistical nature, as was the case with Bell's theorem, insofar as measurements on a single GHZ state could lead to conflicting predictions with local realistic models [3–5]. In this paper we present the history of the creation of this theorem and analyze its scope.
Abstract This chapter presents a detailed discussion of Bell inequalities and their experimental tests. Starting from the Aharonov-Bohm version of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) paradox, we review EPR’s criteria for realism and completeness and Bell’s locality condition, before deriving the Clauser-Horne-Shimony-Holt (CHSH) inequality. This is followed by an exposition on Bell’s original inequality and other Bell inequalities by Wigner, as well as Clauser and Horne. We then discuss the milestones in the experimental violation of Bell inequalities, from the experiment of Freedman and Clauser in the 1970s, to the efforts of Aspect et al. in the 1980s, the experiments by the teams of Zeilinger and Gisin in the 1990s, and culminating the loophole-free tests in 2015. Finally we turn to a brief discussion of the interpretations of quantum mechanics, focusing on contrasting the realist views held by, e.g., Einstein and Bell, and the informational views with proponents such as Brukner and Zeilinger